Gentoo Archives: gentoo-cygwin

From: Patrick Lauer <gentoo@×××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-cygwin@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-cygwin] interest in gentoo-cygwin
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:59:33
Message-Id: 1136800741.5922.27.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-cygwin] interest in gentoo-cygwin by Trevor Forbes
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 18:02 +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote:
> These are "nice to know" points. If you remember anything else, pls let > me know. Tks > > I have started to working on it (for fun) in my spare time and I am > having some success. I have set up the user/group in Cygwin to look more > like Linux which is mostly working. I added the os definitions which > were missing from portage. I am now at the stage where the file locks > are not getting removed.
Interesting. Which portage version are you using ?
> The ":" might be tricky, however, I could use a managed mount for > portage. Perhaps the offending packages could simply be renamed.
RSYNC_EXCLUDE can contain a list of files not to transfer - filtering out the two or three offenders shouldn't be difficult
> I am only interested in getting Cygwin working so SFU not in my scope. I > have not found Cygwin buggy, and even if it were broken, its just code > that can be fixed... Do you have examples...
the linker dies after ~30 package compiles because it can't allocate an address for the dynamic libraries some functions of the libc are just stubs and don't do what they pretend to do file semantics are b0rked in some quite evil ways (removing an open file does some magic and almost looks like Unix) In general it almost works, but these bugs can be really annoying. And whenever you think you've found them all you find a new one ;-) wkr, Patrick -- -- gentoo-cygwin@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-cygwin] interest in gentoo-cygwin Trevor Forbes <t4bs@×××××××××××.au>